Fox News yn son am adroddiad Hutton...

Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod

Cymedrolwr: Cwlcymro

Rheolau’r seiat
Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod. Cofiwch, dim ymosodiadau personol. Pwyswch yma i ddarllen canllawiau cyffredinol maes-e.

Postiogan eusebio » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 5:36 pm

A son am Murdoch - difir yw gweld fod penaethiad Sky News yn dal yn eu lle ac yn barod i feirniadu'r BBC er i uno'u gohebwyr hwy greu adroddiad gwbwl ffug o Ryfel y Gwlff.

Mae'r gohebydd, yn anffodus, wedi llad ei hun, ond mae'r golygyddion a phenaethiaid yn dal yn eu lle.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
eusebio
Cymedrolwr
Cymedrolwr
 
Negeseuon: 7913
Ymunwyd: Gwe 11 Gor 2003 11:56 am
Lleoliad: Ynys Cybi

Postiogan RET79 » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 6:17 pm

eusebio a ddywedodd:Mae gan Fox mwy o wylwyr na CNN ac MSNBC - y ddau brif orsaf newyddion arall.
Mae Fox wedi mynd o fod yn jôc i drechu'r ddwy orsaf arall yn sylweddol yn y ratings.


Wel mae'n rhaid felly fod llawer o bobl yn hoffi y ffordd mae Fox yn darlledu'r newyddion. Wnaeth neb orfodi'r pobl yma wylio Fox hefo gwn at eu pennau.
RET79
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
RET79
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 1935
Ymunwyd: Sul 01 Meh 2003 8:58 pm

Postiogan Macsen » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 6:26 pm

RET79 a ddywedodd:Wel mae'n rhaid felly fod llawer o bobl yn hoffi y ffordd mae Fox yn darlledu'r newyddion. Wnaeth neb orfodi'r pobl yma wylio Fox hefo gwn at eu pennau.


Mae pobl yn hoffi Fox am ei fod o'n dweud celwydd. Mae'n rhoi ferswin or byd iddyn nhw sy'n hollol biased tuag at ei ffordd nhw o feddwl. Dwyt ti ddim yn gweld hynny'n beth peryg o gwbwl, RET79?
Rhywun yn ymosod ar y Gymraeg? - Rhannwch Why Welsh.com!
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Macsen
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
 
Negeseuon: 6193
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 8:01 pm
Lleoliad: Penrhiwllan/Waunfawr

Postiogan RET79 » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 6:29 pm

Macsen a ddywedodd:
RET79 a ddywedodd:Wel mae'n rhaid felly fod llawer o bobl yn hoffi y ffordd mae Fox yn darlledu'r newyddion. Wnaeth neb orfodi'r pobl yma wylio Fox hefo gwn at eu pennau.


Mae pobl yn hoffi Fox am ei fod o'n dweud celwydd. Mae'n rhoi ferswin or byd iddyn nhw sy'n hollol biased tuag at ei ffordd nhw o feddwl. Dwyt ti ddim yn gweld hynny'n beth peryg o gwbwl, RET79?


Ahhh felly ti'n meddwl fod pobl yn rhy dwp i ddewis beth i'w wylio. Well all gymaint a hynna o bobl ddim i gyd fod yn anghywir? Beth ti'n cynnig, gwahardd Fox News? Rheoli beth geith y bobl weld? Well gen i roi dewis i'r bobl beth mae nhw eisiau ei wylio, yn bersonol, gan dwi o'r farn fod nhw'n ddigon tebol i ddewis drostyn nhw eu hunain.

Mae dy feddylfryd di, o fod yn anhapus a rhoi dewis i bobl, a penderfynnu drostyn nhw beth sy'n anghywir, yn lot mwy perygl yn fy marn i.
RET79
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
RET79
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 1935
Ymunwyd: Sul 01 Meh 2003 8:58 pm

Postiogan Macsen » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 6:33 pm

RET79 a ddywedodd:Ahhh felly ti'n meddwl fod pobl yn rhy dwp i ddewis beth i'w wylio.


Dim byd i wneud a twpdra. Dim bai y bobl ydio ei bod nhw wedi dewis FOX, ond bai FOX am ddweud clwydda wrth y bobl.

RET79 a ddywedodd:Well all gymaint a hynna o bobl ddim i gyd fod yn anghywir?


Roedd nifer o bobl o blaid y Nazis yn yr Almaen hefyd. Doedden nhw ddim yn anghywir? Peth reit dwp i'w ddweud, RET. Atgoffa fi or hysbyseb na'n y Simpsons: "Thirty Million Smokers Can't Be Wrong!"

RET a ddywedodd:Beth ti'n cynnig, gwahardd Fox News?


Cyfraith yn lleihau yr nifer o ffynhonellau newyddion mae pobl yn medru rheoli, fel bod y gwyliwr a mwy o ddewis. Mae Rupert Murdoch bia tri chwarter y newyddion yn America, felly does gan y bobl ddim lot o ddewis. Yn y wlad yma mae rheolau yn erbyn hyn.
Rhywun yn ymosod ar y Gymraeg? - Rhannwch Why Welsh.com!
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Macsen
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
 
Negeseuon: 6193
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 8:01 pm
Lleoliad: Penrhiwllan/Waunfawr

Postiogan Dylan » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 8:13 pm

Boris a ddywedodd:Sioni bach, cariad, ti di cam ddeall eto. Dwi di dweud fwy nag unwaith fod adroddiad Hutton yn unochrog (darllen yr edefyn cyn cyfrannu yn syniad da sti) ond ar y pwynt am AG - fo dwedodd ei fod wedi camarwain, fo a neb arall. Efallai fod yr honiad 45 munud yn anghywir, efallai fod y WMD yn anghywir ond nid dyna ddywedodd AG. Dweud wnaeth AG fod y llywodraeth yn gwybod fod y rhybudd 45 munud yn anghywir gan fod 'senior intelligence source' wedi dweud hynny wrtho. Pan ddaeth hi'n fater o gadarnhau hyn fe gyfaddefodd nad oedd neb wedi honni hyn wrtho ac felly roedd ei adroddiad gwreiddiol yn gamarweiniol.

Be felly oedd Hutton i fod i ddweud? "AG states that he mis-quoted Dr Kelly and that his initial report was incorrect, but on the basis of a conversation with Sioni I have decided to over rule AG's own evidence and find that he was 100% accurate" Byd ffantasi Sioni, byd ffantasi.


'Roedd Gilligan yn pwysleisio drwy gydol ei adroddiadau mai ffynhonell oedd wedi dweud y pethau yma. Wnaeth o ddim gwneud y cyhuddiad yn bersonol.

Transcript o gyfweliad Susan Watts gyda David Kelly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/u ... pter02.stm

tua'r canol (sori ei fod mor hir ond mae'n berthnasol iawn):

36. On 30 May 2003 Ms Susan Watts contacted Dr Kelly and had a lengthy telephone conversation with him which she recorded on a tape recorder and I am satisfied that she made an accurate transcript of that conversation. Part of that transcript is as follows:

SW: OK, um While I'm sure since you've been in New York I don't know whether you've been following the kind of the rumpus that's erupted over here over the … spat between the intelligence service and the umm …

DK: I guessed something was up - I read the Times this am and I could see there was something there and I think this follows on from what was happening in the states with Rumsfeld's comments.

SW: yes it's partly prompted by Rumsfeld - two statements by Rumsfeld - the first one saying that it was "possible" the weapons were destroyed before the war started and then he went on I think in another speech yesterday to say that the use of the argument on the position on WMD was for bureaucratic reasons rather than being the prime motive for the war, which is a rather vague statement.

DK: yes

SW: But what intrigued me and which made, prompted me to ring you, (huh) was the quotes yesterday on the Today programme about the 45 minutes part of the dossier.

DK: yep. We spoke about this before of course ….

SW: We have

DK: I think you know my views on that.

SW: Yes, I've looked back at my notes and you were actually quite specific at that time - I may have missed a trick on that one, but err

(both laugh)

SW: you were more specific than the source on the Today programme - not that that necessarily means that it's not one and the same person … but, um in fact you actually referred to Alastair Campbell in that conversation ….

DK: err yep yep …. with you? …

SW: yes

DK: I mean I did talk to Gavin Hewitt yesterday - he phoned me in New York, so he may have picked up on what I said … because I would have said exactly the same as I said to you ….

SW: Yes, so he presumably decided not to name Alastair Campbell himself but just to label this as Number 10 ….

DK: yep yep

SW: are you getting much flak over that?

DK: me? No, not yet anyway I was in New York … (laughs)

SW: yes good timing I suppose

DK: I mean they wouldn't think it was me, I don't think. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I don't know.

SW: um so is that the only item in the report that you had concerns over being single-sourced rather than double-sourced?

DK: You have to remember I'm not part of the intelligence community - I'm a user of intelligence … of course I'm very familiar with a lot of it, that's why I'm asked to comment on it … but I'm not deeply embedded into that …xxx … So some of it I really can't comment because I don't know whether it's single-sourced or not

SW: but on the 45 minutes

DK: oh that I knew because I knew the concern about the statement … it was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion … you know someone … They were desperate for information … they were pushing hard for information which could be released .. that was one that popped up and it was seized on … and it was unfortunate that it was … which is why there is the argument between the intelligence services and cabinet office/number ten, because things were picked up on, and once they've picked up on it you can't pull it back, that's the problem …


SW: but it was against your advice that they should publish it?

DK: I wouldn't go as strongly as to say … that particular bit, because I was not involved in the assessment of it … no … I can't say that it was against MY advice … I was uneasy with it … I mean my problem was I could give other explanations … which I've indicated to you … that it was the time to erect something like a scud missile or it was the time to fill a 40 barrel, multi-barrel rocket launcher

…. (Next 5 words physically removed from tape … not present on Monday 14/7/03 …. assume due to rubbing as tape constantly re-wound)

…("all sorts of reasons why") 45 minutes might well be important and … I mean I have no idea who de-briefed this guy quite often it's someone who has no idea of the topic and the information comes through and people then use it as they see fit ….

SW: so it wasn't as if there were lots of people saying don't put it in don't put it in … it's just it was in there and was seized upon … rather than number ten specifically going against …?

DK: there were lots of people saying that - I mean it was an interesting week before the dossier was put out because there were so many things in there that people were saying well … we're not so sure about that, or in fact they were happy with it being in but not expressed the way that it was, because you know the word-smithing is actually quite important and the intelligence community are a pretty cautious lot on the whole but once you get people putting it/presenting it for public consumption then of course they use different words. I don't think they're being wilfully dishonest I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best. I'm sure you have the same problem as a journalist don't you, sometimes you've got to put things into words that the public will understand.

SW: simple

DK: in your heart of hearts you must realise sometimes that's not actually the right thing to say … but it's the only way you can put it over if you've got to get it over in two minutes or three minutes

SW: did you actually write that section which refers to the 45 minutes Or was it somebody else?

DK: errr. I didn't write THAT section, no. I mean I reviewed the whole thing, I was involved with the whole process … In the end it was just a flurry of activity and it was very difficult to get comments in because people at the top of the ladder didn't want to hear some of the things

SW: so you expressed your unease about it? Put it that way

DK: errr well … yes yep yes


SW: so how do you feel now number ten is furiously denying it and Alastair Campbell specifically saying it's all nonsense it was all in the intelligence material?

DK: well I think it's matter of perception isn't it. I think people will perceive things and they'll be, how shall I put it, they'll see it from their own standpoint and they may not even appreciate quite what they were doing

SW: do you think there ought to be a security and intelligence committee inquiry?

DK: yes but not now. I think that has to be done in about six months time when we actually have come to the end of the evaluation of Iraq and the information that is going to come out of it. I still think it's far too early to be talking about the intelligence that is there … a lot of intelligence that would appear to be good quality intelligence, some of which is not and it take a long long time to get the information that's required from Iraq. The process has only just started. I think one of the problems with dossier - and again I think you and I have talked about it in the past is that it was presented in a very black and white way without any sort of quantitative aspects of it. The only quantitative aspects were the figures derived essentially from UNSCOM figures, which in turn are Iraq's figures presented to UNSCOM - you know the xxx litres anthrax, the 4 tonnes VX - all of that actually is Iraqi figures - but there was nothing else in there that was quantitative or even remotely qualitative - I mean it was just a black and white thing - they have weapons or they don't have weapons. That in turn has been interpreted as being a vast arsenal and I'm not sure any of us ever said that …. people have said to me that that was what was implied, Again we discussed it … and I discussed it with many people, that my own perception is that yes they have weapons but actually not xzxxxx (xxx not problem) at this point in time. The PROBLEM was that one could anticipate that without any form of inspection, and that forms a real deterrence, other than the sanctions side of things, then that that would develop. I think that was the real concern that everyone had, it was not so much what they have now but what they would have in the future. But that unfortunately wasn't expressed strongly in the dossier because that takes away the case for war … (I cough) to a certain extent

SW: a clear and present, imminent threat?

DK: yes

..........

SW: ok … just back momentarily on the 45 minute issue … I'm feeling like I ought to just explore that a little bit more with you … the um … err So would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation, to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who …?

DK: No I can't. All I can say is the Number Ten press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't … (SW interrupts: they seized on that?) But … I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it.


awgrymu yn reit gryf bod Kelly wedi crybwyll y 45 munud i Gilligan

Mae'r BBC yn gorfod derbyn y bai am beidio cymryd y camau iawn i sicrhau bod stori Gilligan yn iawn, ond y mwya' 'dw i'n edrych ar y tystiolaeth y mwya' blin 'dw i'n mynd. Mae'r anghyfiawnder fan hyn yn anhygoel.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Dylan
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 3282
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 7:59 pm
Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Caernarfon

Postiogan Boris » Sad 07 Chw 2004 11:02 am

Dwi ddim yn meddwl mae'r 45 munud yw'r ddadl Dylan.

Cangymeriad (dwi'n bod yn garedig) AG oedd datgan fod y llywodraeth wedi mynnu cynnwys y rhybudd er fod y llywodraeth yn GWYBOD fod hynny yn gelwydd. Tydi dim oll sydd wedi ei ddyfynnu uchod yn cefnogi y datganiad hwn - a dyna yn ei hanfod pam mae adroddiad AG ac nid adroddiad SW oedd dan sylw yn ymchwiliad Hutton. Ar y pwynt cyfyng hwn roedd Hutton yn iawn (ac yn iawn hefyd i gondemio safonau y BBC) y broblem efo Hutton yw fod y llywodraeth wedi cael llechen lan ganddo er gwaethaf y dystiolaeth sylweddol oedd yn bodoli i gondemio Blair ac eraill - ond serch hynny, roedd y casgliad am AG ar BBC yn ffeithiol gywir o ystyried y 'remit' cyfyng.

Felly unwaith eto, nol at fy mhwynt, ddaru y BBC gynnig 'open goal' i sylwebydd (nid newyddiadurwr) Fox? Do, do a do eto.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Cardi Bach » Sul 08 Chw 2004 1:36 pm

Boris a ddywedodd:
Dylan a ddywedodd:what we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that, actually the government probably erm, knew that that forty five minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in.


Yr uchod yw'r broblem - ac mae AG wedi derbyn nad oedd yr honiad fod y llywodraeth yn gwybod fod y mater 45 munud yn anghywir wedi dod trwy David Kelly nac neb arall. Celwydd ta cangymeriad?

Ta waeth, y pwynt dwi'n meddwl yw fod cangymeriad AG a'r modd y bu i'r BBC amddiffyn y stori agor y drws i fobl (megis cyfranwr OTT Fox news) gyhuddo y BBC o ddweud celwydd


Hwn sydd yn ddiddorol.
Hwn yw testun yr holl drafferth.
Ma'r llywodreth a Campell wedi bod yn hynod lwyddiannus a chyfrwys iawn yma. Darllennwch ddyfyniad Gilligan eto.

Mae'r llywodraeth, a'r wasg wedi llyncu yr abwyd, wedi llwyddo mynd ar ol y darn mwya di-bwys yn y dyfyniad, tra fo ergyd y dyfyniad yn ffeithiol gywir.

"what we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier"

dyma gelwydd Gilligan. A dyma mae'r llywodraeth wedi mynd ar ei ol ac mae'r wasg yn ddiarwybod yn dilyn, ond

"actually the government probably erm, knew that that forty five minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in"

mae hyn, sef fel y dywedais ergyd y dyfyniad, yn ffeithiol gywir. Mae Hoon wedi cyfaddef - aelod o'r llywodraeth - ac mi roedd Campell yn gwybod (wele dystiolaeth Dylan uchod), felly mi roedd y Llywodraeth yn gwybod.

Fel newyddiadura, roedd Gilligan wedi dod i'r casgliad cywir yma, ond heb dystiolaeth gadarn iw roi mewn pwt newyddion dwy funud - ond mi roedd e'n gywir. Nawr gallwn ni fynd mlan hyd syrffed felly am y diffygion i gefnogi'r farn yma a brofwyd yn ffaith, ond mae hynny, yn union fel Hutton, yn tynnu'r sylw oddi ar Y pwynt, sef celwydd y Llywodraeth.

Iawn, ma Dyke, Davies a Gilligan wedi mynd - a wneith y cyfryngau ganolbwyntio ar y gwir newyddion, sef fod y llywodraeth yn dweud celwyddau? Ddim tra fod FOX news ac eraill yn mynnu amddiffyn y llywodraeth drwy eu helpu i dynnu'r pwysau oddi arnynt.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Cardi Bach
Gweinyddwr
Gweinyddwr
 
Negeseuon: 2694
Ymunwyd: Maw 22 Hyd 2002 7:54 am
Lleoliad: Gal

Postiogan Boris » Llun 09 Chw 2004 9:35 am

Cardi Bach a ddywedodd:Nawr gallwn ni fynd mlan hyd syrffed felly am y diffygion i gefnogi'r farn yma a brofwyd yn ffaith, ond mae hynny, yn union fel Hutton, yn tynnu'r sylw oddi ar Y pwynt, sef celwydd y Llywodraeth.



Yn hollol Cardi, trwy flerwch a diffyg proffesiynoldeb fe lwyddodd AG i roi 'escape route' i'r llywodraeth ac agor y drws i 'Opinion Piece' Fox (er fy mod yn amheus os yw hynny yn debygol o gael ryw laer o effaith ar y boblogaeth yn y DU (gweler polau piniwn)

Gyda llaw Cardi, lle ti di bod?
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Cardi Bach » Mer 11 Chw 2004 5:25 pm

Boris a ddywedodd:
Gyda llaw Cardi, lle ti di bod?


(Blydi fishi! A'n debygol o fod yn fishi uffernol am sbelen to. Na i bicio mewn yn achlysurol.)
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Cardi Bach
Gweinyddwr
Gweinyddwr
 
Negeseuon: 2694
Ymunwyd: Maw 22 Hyd 2002 7:54 am
Lleoliad: Gal

NôlNesaf

Dychwelyd i Rhyfel a Heddwch

Pwy sydd ar-lein

Defnyddwyr sy’n pori’r seiat hon: Dim defnyddwyr cofrestredig ac 1 gwestai

cron